[2020] KEELC 3374 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 3374 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioner is the lawfully registered proprietor of SIAYA/TOWNSHIP BLOCK 1/276, having acquired the land through inheritance and proper registration. The respondents failed to provide any evidence of a superior claim or to challenge the petitioner’s title. The actions of the respondents in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 3374 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenneth Ouma Akech; Respondent: County Government of Siaya; Respondent: Hon. Cornel Rasanga Amoth
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 14 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed in part; declaratory and injunctive relief granted; certiorari declined; costs to petitioner.
Judges
TM Olando
Legal Topics
Right to Property, Land Registration, Title Indefeasibility, Public Authority Encroachment
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Land and Property Right to Property Land Registration Title Indefeasibility Public Authority Encroachment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Ouma Akech

Applicant

County Government of Siaya

Respondent

Hon. Cornel Rasanga Amoth

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner is the lawful proprietor of SIAYA/TOWNSHIP BLOCK 1/276.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents unlawfully encroached, trespassed, or interfered with the petitioner’s property rights in contravention of Article 40 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner’s fundamental right to property has been violated by the respondents’ actions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioner is the lawfully registered proprietor of SIAYA/TOWNSHIP BLOCK 1/276, having acquired the land through inheritance and proper registration. The respondents failed to provide any evidence of a superior claim or to challenge the petitioner’s title. The actions of the respondents in entering, fencing, and asserting ownership over the land constituted an unlawful encroachment and violation of the petitioner’s constitutional right to property under Article 40. The court held that the petitioner’s title was not shown to have been acquired illegally or unprocedurally, and thus enjoys statutory protection. The respondents’ failure to respond substantively or...

Court Disposition

Petition allowed in part; declaratory and injunctive relief granted; certiorari declined; costs to petitioner.

Orders

  • Declaration that the respondents unlawfully encroached, trespassed, and wrongfully assumed ownership of the petitioner’s land in violation of Article 40.
  • Respondents directed to remove any fencing material or structures placed on the suit land; in default, the petitioner is at liberty to remove them.